The fact that you get food stamps solely based on your income and not your assets is wrong. Sell that damn bling your wearing before you stand in line in front of me in the supermarket and buy your goodies with my tax dollars.

Larry, if you have actually seen someone paying with food stamps and wearing big jewelry, that’s called costume jewelry. It is flashy but extremely inexpensive and has no resale value. I can go to the H&M right now and buy some giant sparkly earrings that would really get noticed. For $10. Are they worth anything in resale if I lose my job and take them to a pawn shop? No. And what about a gold costume ring from Macy’s that cost $50? What will a pawn shop pay for this if something happens and I need to sell valuable things? $0. Should we have a law that says I can’t wear it unless my income reaches a certain level?

But maybe I’m wrong. Tell me more about this specific person you, personally, saw in line at the supermarket.

It’s not just the jewelery, readerJ. We’ve all see the food stamp users with iPhones, new Nikes, BMWs, kids with Nintendo DSs, etc.

Is it all of them? No. Is it even a majority of them? Couldn’t say. But the inherent deal we accept with Food Stamps is that they are to temporarily help someone out of a bind, not serve as a subsidy to otherwise allow you to spend your cash on “fun stuff”.

And the bad apples (however many of them there are) do spoil the bunch.

It’s not just the jewelery, readerJ. We’ve all see the food stamp users with iPhones, new Nikes, BMWs, kids with Nintendo DSs, etc.

Oh please. Cell phones are the only phones poor people have now; those Nikes aren’t new, they’re from the thrift store; and the only BMW you saw is 25-years-old and about to blow up. That’s assuming you saw any of these things, which is doubtful. Assuming you noticed anything at all about a food-stamp user, it was a a phone, some shoes and a car. You’re making stuff up.

Two key points. First, on the President’s insistence on “giving something back”.

“[T]he top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes”. If that’s not giving something back, what is?

Indeed. Can they pay more? Sure. Should they in this economy? Debatable. But are they giving something back? Absolutely.

So, what’s the President’s point?

Second:
“Together with a bit of simple democratic mathematics, the facts about the portion of tax revenue contributed by the rich plausibly suggest that they pay more than their fair share for the infrastructure of capitalism. The rich have money, which can buy political influence. But the middle class have votes, which in a democracy is influence. So it’s not surprising that the public goods upon which the middle class equally depends are financed disproportionately by the wealthy. ”

Jim VandeHei, Politico: “Everyone is saying Mitt Romney’s strategy is terrible. ‘Why isn’t he responding more forcefully?’ Do people understand how much money he’s sitting on and how much money these outside groups are sitting on? And when everybody tunes in he’s going to be outspending, with his allies, maybe 2-to-1 in those final months of the campaign. You don’t think he can redefine himself? No one is paying attention.”

^^Yes, the voters – that 5%-7% or so – who will decide this election (unless something big breaks) aren’t paying much attention, if at all, to this election. Not at this point.

Romney does still run the risk of his chief asset, his business acumen, being turned against him. I.e., my Bernie Madoff analogy which is brilliant but nobody likes (yeah, okay, Picasso was mocked too).

I think that’s his main concern and the main goal of the Obama campaign.

But right now, it’s all background noise to the critical part of the electorate.

I was behind someone in line at Wal Mart who was attempting to buy dog food with her Lone Star card. Dog food isn’t allowed to purchased with the card. The lady was very upset and I caught about half of what she was saying in her broken English. Long story short, she refused to pay for the dog food with her own money, and instead went and got a mess load of hamburger meat to feed her dog instead of dog food. That’s what entitlements do to people.

I also saw somebody try to buy a bicycle at Wal Mart with their Lone Star card.

I am an avid viewer of Real Time, Larry, and I know Alex did a “hit piece” on both sides of the aisle. Nice try though.

Yes, stereotypes come about for a reason. But lets dispense with the BS, not everyone follows the stereotype. Judge not lest you be judged. Besides, if you wanna get in a pissing contest about who is getting govt benefits, I would be happy to know how many of you have taken a mortgage deduction and/or child tax credit. Public schools anyone?

As I have stated before, if you are going to use tax revenue as an example of the rest of us loafing off the productivity and general intellectual superiority of the wealthy, you really should look at the whole pie…

We desperately need overall tax reform. Why both sides can’t meet somewhere in the middle on this is absolutely baffling to me. The solutions are there, the ability to do it, not so much.

By the way, for all the wealth worshippers out there, if you want to pledge allegiance to Snooki, Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt, and every highly paid basketball player because their large sums of money is an example of their superior knowledge and epic work ethic, then go right ahead. I won’t be a doormat for any dumb schmuck with a sweaty stack of Benjamins. Good luck with that though.

SOMEBODY still has to build things, educate people, pave roads, erect buildings, heal the sick, protect the young, and all the other stuff that will never make you a lot of money. For the love of all things holy can anyone show a little respect and gratitude for others who do the work that we can’t or won’t do for ourselves? Really, nobody?

Salon’s Alex Pareene:
“Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy.”

If I lose my job and need to get government assistance, I’m keeping Princess. My cat is part of my family. It’s very rare that someone ends up destitute, THEN gets a pet. You guys have no effing clue what you’re talking about. People with jobs picking on the poor is an ugly sight. I grew up poor. Trust me, it’s no party.

Over the years I’ve taken care of some.. mentally-challenged people who didn’t have anyone else to watch out for them. One sweet older lady was (barely) self-reliant enough to live on her own in a house her late parents had purchased for her. She received food stamps made out to “(My name) for (her name)” and I remember the looks I would receive from others in the check-out queue seeing nicely-dressed me whip out the Dept Of Agriculture coupons. No doubt there were many comments as they watched me and my kids load her groceries into the back of my fancy new, big-a$$ SUV.

Moral of the story: Appearances are often deceiving and our judgements of others can be completely off-base. Always stay mindful that we don’t usually know what’s really going on.

THANK you, Al. I have no clue what the purpose of this ridiculous thread was. If you think the government’s aproach to helping the needy is faulty, say so..and propose an alternative. To tackle the subject with imaginary stories about poor people taking advantage of the system – implying that they’re having a big ole happy-dance party at your expense – is loathsome.

Being poor SUCKS. All joy is lost. Every day is spent trying to figure out how you’re going to scrape enough together to keep your family in a home with lights and heat and food on the table. It’s a daily, traumatic, personal hell, and people who don’t know what they’re talking about throwing “bling” and “iPhones” and “BMWs” around doesn’t help with the trauma and shame.

Sell that damn bling your wearing before you stand in line in front of me in the supermarket and buy your goodies with my tax dollars.

You can’t read for shyte, Eric. This is where this stupid topic started, and then others piled on. What’s the point? Kill food stamps because somebody at the market is wearing earrings? This is no way to discuss poverty, or government programs. It’s just a hamhanded attempt to demonize poor people. Congratulations.

I don’t give a damn what you think about my approach. If I find a thread full of incoherent BS about imaginary “welfare queens”, I’m going rightly assume the commenters have never been in that person’s shoes because if they HAD..they wouldn’t be spewing this crap.

You don’t have to have been poor to have compassion for the poor, but apparently it helps. BMWs my a$$.

^”Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy.”

I grew up so poor not only did our family not have a car , none of the kids had bicycles. I remember my dad having us boys stand in front of the electric meter one time to keep the utility guy from shutting it off. Our dad never sought nor would he have execpted government assistance. That was considered so shameful I thing he would have had us starve first.
Joe, kiss my …

^He doesn’t give a damned about your feelings or your history or your experiences or your views.

Your views may be wrong but to claim that you don’t know about poverty when he knows nothing about your background is incredibly condescending and arrogant.

It was the same thing with the Zimmermann tragedy. He “KNEW” that Zimmermann was a racist and targed Martin and “shot him like a dog.” He KNEW it because only he KNEW about racism and racial profiling. He knew nothing about Zimmermann the real person.

See, none of us know anything about racism. Or poverty. Or anything else.

That’s the problem. There’s no shame in taking food stamps or other government assistance anymore. My Dad delivered freaking newspapers when he was out of work and continued to do so along with having a full time job once he finally found one because we needed the money. Yeah, we prolly would have qualified for assistance but my parents would never have taken it. Ever.

Erich is right. Joe thinks he is the only one who knows about and has experienced anything. The rest of us are just trust funders in his view.

No question most of those on assistance merit that help, but many don’t and are either too lazy or adverse to hard work. Democrats don’t care about the destination. It’s all a big vote farm. Keep them breeding and dependent and collect their dependable votes.

Oh I see, your DAD’s were poor, and they would have let their children starve rather than take assistance. A. I see no evidence YOU were faced with that decision. B. I seriously doubt any father would let his children starve out of pride.

People don’t seek lousy government checks and free blocks of cheese INSTEAD of work. They do it when there isn’t a job left to be found.

Repeating ad nauseum stupid made-up stories about people in BMWs scamming the system is ridiculous. Just admit you don’t believe in federal poverty assistance, and suggest an alternative. Quit pretending the problem is POOR PEOPLE.

See, he can’t even treat someone else’s Dad and family with a modicum of respect.

I too disagree with Lonestar’s view on this but I’m not going to attack his family and his own experience.

I’m going to tell Lonestar that his experience and his Dad’s is not everyone else’s. That some folks, for whatever reason, can’t do what his Dad did. It’s a different world.

We need to help people with the understanding that the social contract goes both ways. This is not a handout, it’s a handup and people need to understand that it’s coming from the hard work of others and not to take it for granted.

See? That’s how you respectfully disagree with another person when they mention their family.

I too saw “poor” first hand. My father painted houses (the houses of my elementary school teachers, mind you), while my mother babysat the neighborhood kids. They worked hard, long hours, and did what they had to do to scrape by, until better times.

No, they wouldn’t have let us starve, and would have taken a temporary handout if needed, but that was a last resort.

Now I knows that Joe believes nobody ever scams the system, and everyone who uses government assistance is only doing so temporarily, but those of us who’ve taken our heads out of the sand, know that’s not always the case. We’ve seen it in our lives, with our own eyes, and in countless reports on the news and in the paper. But folks like Joe, would rather imagine it doesn’t happen.

Oh, and as for pets, Joe… if you’re in such dire straights, yes, your pet is one of the things that has to go. Yeah, it sucks. But unless you can tell me why MY tax dollars should subsidize your cat, and why limited funds from the government that could perhaps help feed someone else, should go to Miss Princess instead… you’re out of luck.

F*** you, Eric..that’s not what I did. I SAID, you worthless POS, that I don’t believe Lonestar’s dad would have put pride above his children eating. NO one would. If LS couldn’t find work, he’d ask his family. Then his friends. Hell, he could try that jerk Joe on ICN (he’d get it). THEN he would hit up the government if it literally meant the difference between his boy eating or not. That’s what fathers do. F***. You.

My dad lost his good like when the grain mill he owned burned down when I was four. From that point on until the day he died he was always willing to take any job he could find from selling used cars to selling vacuum cleaners door to door. Car sales got him a vehicle to drive. Getting driven to church in a Vita-Boy Potato Chip truck beat walking, but not by much. Anyone who says there are no jobs is a willful liar. Our Electric Coop foreman told me just yesterday he can’t fill openings because the work is hard. The dirty jobs I worked at to pay my way through college were hard too, but I was always thrilled to get one.

You used Lonestar’s revelations about his father to score political points.

Full stop.

You don’t care about people. You’re a fraud. You denigrate Larry and never apologized to him. And then Lonestar tells a story about what his Dad thought and you just dismissed it without a ounce of respect for that view.

Greta has a story on about another solar power company going kaput. While I agree this is another case of political favouritism gone bust, my understanding is that Amonix received a $6m tax credit. I understand that the liberals tend to disagree with me on this, but a tax credit for an upstart company is not quite the same as using taxpayer dollars to fund a questionable investment. I think the cable news heads need to do a better job of reporting the distinction. That this is one of Obama’s favoured industries is largely irrelevant.

ABC WORLDNEWS reported tonight that yesterday’s GMA interview with Ann Romey was such a disaster for the Obama campaign ad mocking the Romney’s show horse, WH & DNC convined an emergency meeting, pulled the add, and issued an appology. Don’t expect to see any more horses.

Also reported was new polls showing a sharp increase in those who think Obama has done a poor job handling the economy now at a whopping 55%. Up from 40% in April.

Liberals have been swallowing too much MSNBC Kool-Aid onf the trivial to see the end of their reign coming.

Before I forget, many thanks to whoever noted Piers Morgan’s Scalia interview. I was able to DVR the second showing and it’s pretty damn good.

I’m also catching myself… I wanted so bad to ask Morgan why he’s so ignorant about what the man is saying, but I must remember that his job is to ask the questions and they they do not necessarily betray his own views.

The Piers Morgan interview of Justice Scalia made very clear his opinion of Roe v. Wade or any variation thereof:

If a pro-choice person says it is unconstitutional for a state to restrict a woman’s right to choose he would say, “You are wrong. The constitution does not address the issue and, therefore, it should be left for the democratic political process to decide.”

If a pro-life person says it is unconstitutional to deny the right of life and liberty to an unborn child he would say, “You are wrong. The constitution does not address the issue and, therefore, it should be left for the democratic political process to decide.”

She’s being excoriated for defending her husband and saying “you people have enough”. Leave. Ann. Alone.

I have no idea why the campaign trotted her out there, and I don’t think it was fair to her. Mitt is her husband, and he’s under attack. She’s not gonna take that well. Did she seem obstinate and defensive? Good for her. She’s not a politician primed for talking points; she’s a wife a litte pissed off. End of story.

It got plenty of play on MSNBC. Not a high-water mark for my side. The trick is to oppose the actual person running for President. Any attack on his wife is just as bad as any attack on the incumbent’s. “But they said bad things about Michelle!” Too damn bad..tit-for-tat doesn’t play here. Every effort liberals take against Ann is a loser. Drop it.

The tactic worked some as it was applied to Hillary Clinton when she was FLOTUS, but only because she veered deeply into advocacy of government policy. While that hurt her husband politically, he was sufficiently agile to recover and prosper from it and she was able to use it s a launch for her own career.

When the discussion on the telly is about “fair share” of income tax rates the liberals are always bringing up payroll taxes as if the “wealthy” don’t pay those, too.

“But it’s unfair because your tax is capped so your percentage is less.” True, but I also pay the other half of my employees’ payroll taxes. If you’re a wage earner you are paying just half of your payroll taxes and your boss pays the other half. I pay both halves of my own.

“But you get to take advantage of the tax loopholes that the rest of us don’t get.” True, but those “loopholes” are also the mechanism by which the government entices me to act in a way thought beneficial for everyone, such as investing in municipal bonds so that roads, schools, bridges, sewage treatment facilities, etc. can be built. There’s also that Alternative Minimum Tax that increasingly widdles away at my deductions.

Obviously I pay more in sales tax than someone who makes less than me because I buy more stuff. This is fair. Whenever voters in my state decide that the sales taxes should be raised it will cost me more than it does those who make less. This is as it should be, and it’s fair because they are also voting an increase on themselves. Income taxes should be the same way. In a free country no one should be able to impose an expense on someone else without it also impacting their own wallet.